9/11: Pathetic "Left" Disinformation

The miserable depths of inanity are upon us. Rock bottom is in view over at the "left" and "alternative" press.

Not only has September 11th been completely covered up by a White House that would not allow an independent investigation for over a year, but they then rigged the investigation staffing such that no one could honestly apply the "independent" label with a clean conscience.

That's not a "cult" secret, is it?

Is such an observation only possible by the UFO "nuts?"

Given hundreds, perhaps thousands of incriminating facts, facts that cast suspicion on the Executive Branch, these alleged opposition journals will not touch it. More than that, they actively demonize, ridicule and childishly mock the 70 million or so of us Americans who are not satisfied with the government's explanation of September 11th 2001.

Alexander Cockburn's CounterPunch calls itself "America's Best Political Newsletter", but on 9/11 issues it amounts to little more than the hysterical fits of a toddler....

“Left resistance to alternative explanations of 9-11 reflects a general antipathy to conspiracy theory even though the official story itself relies on a very elaborate web of conspiracy, involving bin Laden and many others. This may explain why the editors of the respected left journal Monthly Review signaled soon after the tragedies in New York and Washington that independent investigation of the actual events was off-limits.

There is little we can say directly about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC – except that these were acts of utter, inhuman violence, indefensible in every sense, taking a deep and lasting human toll.

The left favors structural explanations of political and social events, with capacious categories such as social class, globalization, international relations and so forth brought to bear on social phenomena, including terrorism. Oppositional theory (which takes dialectical approach to social relations) emphasizes along with structural factors, elite agency: the actions of powerful leaders and organizations with more control over critical events that directly affect our own lives than many leftwing analysts are prepared to accept. Moreover, elites operate within a deep political structure ... that is an unacknowledged part of the network of political power analyzed by the left.

Commentators on the left, like pundits elsewhere on the political spectrum, are hesitant to go far astray of the limits on accepted discourse regarding controversial questions, especially, as in the case of 9-11, when corporate media and the state heavily police these boundaries. There is a left bias toward explanations of terror as the result of exploitation and revolt of the underprivileged. Finally, the left is averse to conspiracy theories spun by critics of the system, seeing such theories as antithetical to systematic analysis based on larger factors, like class struggle or globalization.

Leftist failure to consider official complicity in the events of September 11 may also arise from a common misapprehension of the historical roots of terror. Most commentators regardless of political stripe regard ‘‘terrorism as a non- or extra-state menace, rather than as state violence.’’ However, this perspective ignores ‘‘the possibility that the excessive violence of the state might itself, in certain instances, constitute a form of terrorist violence’’.” – David MacGregor.

is that all this "nuttishness" and "kookery" name-calling business is straight out of the Republican attack-the-messenger ad hominem playbook. I'm not sure what that says about Cockburn, but it is beyond the pale. I'm pretty mystified by his hostility. It is downright odd.

from Mark Elf:
'She started to talk about how Bush and co had staged 9/11. She said it wasn't planes at all. I just nodded and giggled a bit. I still thought she was a bit wacky but harmless and still quite pleasant. Lenin confronted her on her theory about 9/11. Would you believe Lenin actually read all the conspiracy stuff on 9/11 and all the stuff that shows it's a lot of tosh?'http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2006/09/lenin-ruined-my-mancheste...

This is the best 9-11 dvd so far,(not to take away
from all the other great ones CONFRONTING THE EVIDENCE, LOOSE CHANGE 1 AND
2,PAINFUL DECEPTIONS, DAVID RAY GRIFFINS and the many others..thank you)

Anybody who watches "911 Mysteries Part 1"
Will know that pre-arranged explosives throughout the
WTC is what brought them down and that equals
FALSE FLAG OPERATION, INSIDE JOB and THE BUSH/PNAC
ADMINSTRATION PLANED AND ORCHESTRATED 9-11.

END OF STORY!
GOODNIGHT!

I recomend everybody to get this DVD and start
burning them,then hand them out like candy as if it was
Holloween Night.
peace,pw

this is a masterful, beautifully done piece of work on the most compelling evidence for demolitions. Due to its dispassionately informative nature, I think it's a great vehicle for winning over skeptics, which is why I have ordered a bulk set of the DVD's to distribute amongst friends and media outlets.

If you are interested in doing the same, e-mail: 911dvds@gmail.com. Right now, you can pay by check or money order. I think he/she is having a Paypal account set up, but for now you can pay by check or money order.

I encourage the authors of this site to reopost the "distributor's" blogpost from time to time so new visitors to the site will be aware of this fantastic deal: 20 DVDs for 20$

Right/Left -hogwash. Nobody gets any bickies when there is no accountability in Government.

Bureauocracy, theology, ideaology,-all of it stinks to high heaven. "Americans deserve what's coming," according to David Rockefeller. Well, Excuse me for living, you asshole! I hope you share a cell with Ruppert Murdoch.

Very curious how sites like Counterpunch claim to be legitmate representitives of the public but when it comes to the topic of 9/11 are awol. What gives? Actually it was at the Counterpunch site when I first suspected 9/11 was not kosher. Something one of there articles refered to got me researching the subject and I haven't looked back.
Counterpunch, Common Dreams and Buzzflash were once sites I looked to for honesty and unbiased news. Now sad to say I don't really trust them anymore. The 9/11 story is the most important story out there. The facts are the facts and can't be denied. The evidence is overwhelming. I still check those sites out a bit but take everything I read with a grain of salt.

Your comment about Counterpunch, Common Dreams and Buzzflash hit home here. I've had exactly the same reaction as you have had to these seemingly well-meaning websites. They seem to have found the edge of their sandbox and refuse to travel beyond into a wildnerness where revolution might lie. We can mention others, of course. It was very gratifying to see that Amy Goodman had the "Loose Change" crew on Democracy NOW! on 9/11/06. Sadly, Amy decided once again to dilute our message by creating a faux-debate with the ruthless liars from Popular Mechanics. This was the same M.O. that Amy used the last time she interviewed anyone about 9/11 Truth. That was a mock debate with Dr. David Ray Griffin being forced to waste time countering the nonsense of pseudo-leftie Chip Berlet. And 28 months passed between these two "debates". In five excruciating years, Amy Goodman has only discussed 9/11 Truth on these two dates. That just seems reprehensible to me. Imagine this.... 9/11 Truth has been discussed on more programs on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes program in the past five months than it has been on Democracy NOW! in the past five years. Something is very wrong with our media today.

Very bizarre. Keeping mum is one thing because I can let them off the hook if they are simply too afraid to discuss it with elections coming up. But the hit piece by Matt Rotschild and particularly nasty one by Cockburn are what puzzle me because they are actively trying to discredit the movement and the arguments they put forth smack of fear & loathing for the truth. I say this because they seem to steer a wide berth of the most obvious evidence of government complicity in the attacks (WTC evidence).

And, as I've said before, calling people you want to discredit "kooks" & "nuts" as Cockburn did is a tired old Republican tactic that still seems to work well, but it's interesting that Cockburn borrows from their standard playbook vocabulary in this instance. You'd expect it from a Sean Hannity but . . .

Now is the time to create a true 3rd party alternative from scratch. It could be called the Truth Party, and could be for people who will endorse and nominate and vote for candidates based on one issue--cleaning up corruption. Nothing else is more important right now. First we have to fix everything that is being lied about by politicians and the media, THEN we can get back to arguing about welfare and abortion and gay rights and gun rights. If there are those who will reject the obvious truth about 9/11 because they think the issue is "the other side's" then they are basically and fundamentally anti-American in the strictest sense. Partisanship died on 9/11, but not in the way we were told. Anyone who will not join the truth movement because of a political calculation is, well, scum. And proof that George Washington was right when he warned against political parties forming. There will be a rebirth of America that will wash away the now nauseatingly putrid status quo and its supporters. McCain, Clintons, Bushes, Powells, etc. this means you. You sold out your country. You will pay the price. Joining the cause when it's obvious to everyone is not heroism. No one will be spared the responsibility of their actions in the last five years. The revolution has begun, and it will be a revolution of the rule of law over dirty politics and politicians. There is nowhere to run.
_

"Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider."

all good points but you missed mine totally. not everyone thinks like us. most people indeed do not and turning off half the contituency is a tactical error. that was my point. we dont make the rules, we dont have enough power so we have to go around them or through them. that means being tactical and smart. not calling liberals "pussies". thats not exactly smart.

with Chris in that belligerence with those who do not agree with you is not going to help your case. As an oldster, please trust me on this. I COMPLETELY understand your frustration because I've been there but I'm just speaking from experience. Calm, fearless and unwavering persistence are key. I think the Civil Rights movement is the best model for change that there is. Taking the high road actually takes a lot more courage and gets better results. You have to be 10 times better than your opponent in every way when all the elements are working against you which, in this case as we all know, they are.

However, I really like the image and the sentiment. I think my positive reaction is probably due to imagining wearing a tee shirt version to an event with generic liberals and by implication (ie, here I am with my fellow liberals) its meaning would not be liberals = pussies, but "y'all liberal PUSSIES need to get out of the way while us liberal AMAZONS take care of some 9/11 business." See the difference?

To reiterate, I basically agree with your take on it. It's a question of whether you'd wear it in "mixed company." Among liberals only it would be different than in some diverse group in which, heaven forbid, some righty AJ-type would congratulate you.

hahaha, seriously though, if you can, take a look at pockys last 50 or so comments. they are all basically the same typical "its the lefts fault 9/11 hasnt been exposed, goddamn anti-war liberals" bullshit. he does his little "fuck liberals" drive-by and not much else. oh, and he bashes anyone who thinks that Flight 77 likely didnt hit the Pentagon and anyone who doesnt think the ISI-Pakistan hangout is the holy grail. and as far as Alex Jones goes, its a very love/hate type thing i have going with him. his politics are annoying but the information he provides and puts into context is invaluable. his heart is definetly in the right place, no matter how annoying he can be to some.

it's cognitive dissonance par excellence! It's not like 9/11 Truth is in any way associated with the GOP. And the lib'rals feel they need to step up to the plate for fear of coming across as weaklings.

I love it. My friend made it in response to some garbage about 9/11 Truth "undermining the left" LOL Check it out, the truth is too powerful and we're NEVER gonna shut up or sit down or stop until this is DONE!

Ditto here for Counterpunch. These journalists have illuminated only a couple things for readers who can differentiate between rhetorical device and an argument based in accounting of fact.

a) the writers are too poorly trained in the physical sciences to directly address pointed analyses with which they are uncomfortable.

b) they somehow feel motivated to rebut pointed analyses of the profound physical event at issue with non-substantive cultural explanations.

Such cultural explanations are conspicuous in their incongruity, ranging from stances that the subject is essentially unimportant or “missing the point”, to providing psychological analysis of the personalities at issue, under a presumed doctor/patient relationship.

No pointed response traversing the actual issues raised by the “nuts” are in sight at Counterpunch, let alone any actual debate. There is the “promise” of an explanation of 9/11 if you pay money. Wha…?

After such continued “social commentary” attacking those who question the official physical analysis of 9/11 events, and, given the recorded history of neocon tactics, it is, merely, statistically probable that the latter “motivation” of Counterpunch for such a determined rhetorical position would involve some direct or indirect commission.

CounterPunch editor Alexander Cockburn wants to have it both ways: he wants to publish pieces by Bill Christison, Paul Craig Roberts, and Ray McGovern, but he doesn't want to call them "nutcases," which they are by his own standard.

Truthers should write him c/o and ask him (politely) when he is going to publicly denounce these writers as "conspiracy nutcases."

There is ONE mainstream media many of us have had success in getting print; letters to the editor. I propose we organize a basic list of questions...the best ones...and post that here. EVERYONE submit a letter to the editor in your local newspaper at a targeted date...I recomend October 25...with these same questions and facts. In my local paper, there is a 350 word limit. This is an idea that will definately cause a wave. Any suggestions?
By the way, Happy anniversary, Reprehensor.

And I was "fired" because I am a 9/11 nut. Actually, a couple years ago, I wrote an irregular column for Counterpunch. I fired myself after an exchange with Cockburn. Some of his Ford Foundation Air America friends gave him grief because I questioned 9/11 in an article that appeared in one of his anthologies back in 2003. That was a bee under his bonnet. Cockburn has come to represent the gatekeeper left, along with Chomsky -- who has actually written some valuable stuff -- and it is obvious they don't want to change anything and like politicos like Bush because they make a living ineffectually carping from one decade to the next about our rulers. Cockburn is a lefty careerist. He makes money calling decent folks nuts for investigating 9/11. But never mind. I bet 911 Blogger gets more hits than Counterpunch.

I was wondering why I had not seen anything by you on CP in a while, and suspected this might be the reason, or one reason. It's sad what's happening to CP. Still publishing lots of good stuff, but self-censorship is not a healthy sign.

Good points from Nimmo and Rice Farmer, and congrat's to 911blogger for a great website. Btw, nuts are healthy in the proper portion.

Another aspect in 911 Left Gatekeeping is that the Left is largely Jewish (or Jewish controlled), and if 911 leads back to Israel as an accomplice in the staged event (as with JFK, ala Michael Collins Final Judgment), just one more reason to throw mud. Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon" raises many interesting points in the chapter on Israel. While I don't agree with every line he as written (at one point he seems to repeat the mantra that Israel is the US's "cop on the beat" in the oil rich MIddle East, without providing evidence for this assertion, ala Chomsky and his trained seals), he does not flinch from examining the Israeli role in 911 and provides much damning evidence in this regard. Certainly better than Numb Chumsky and though Cockburn has exposed the Jewish Lobby, he backs off from 911 Jewish Power completely.

INTRODUCTION
In early 1992, after the release of Oliver Stone's film JFK a media thundercloud erupted.

After early attacks in mainstream media like the Chicago Tribune and Washington Post, many other alternative media of both the left and right began to run articles on the film including outlets like "The Village Voice", for which Alexander Cockburn used to write. To the surprise of many, when some of these supposed leftist media organs did chime in, they savaged the film as wildly as the mainstream press did. These outlets were, specifically, The Progressive, Z magazine, and The Nation. The writers were, respectively, the late Erwin Knoll, Noam Chomsky, and Alexander Cockburn. Chomsky then wrote a book, Rethinking Camelot to specifically attack one of the main theses of JFK, namely that Kennedy had intended to withdraw from Vietnam by 1965.

But of the three, by far the most bitter and vicious polemics about the film were by Cockburn in three pieces in The Nation dated January 6/13, March 9, and May 18, 1992. The first piece was entitled "J.F.K. and JFK" in which he attacked not only the film, but the publishers of the book by Jim Garrison on which it was based, author Peter Dale Scott_who originated the Kennedy withdrawal thesis_and John Kennedy himself.

The next two issues cited were Cockburn's response to several of scores of letters The Nation received in response to the original article. Cockburns's response to the first group of letters was less than detached and academic. He said that Scott and author John Newman ("JFK and Vietnam" and an advisor on the film) suffered from "fantasies" and that Scott's letter was basically "silly" and showed "evidence of a rather pathetic persecution mania"(P. 319).

But perhaps the worst performance by Cockburn was in the last round of letters. He responded to correspondence by Oliver Stone, John Newman and Philip Green. He accused Stone of being a fascist (p. 678), said Newman's letter was a "confession of defeat" and called him "a very bad historian" (p. 678)_even though in the earlier issue he had called his tome "a serious book" (January 6/13 p. 7). He called Green's letter "the silliest of the lot" and full of "self-regarding blatherhttp://www.webcom.com/~lpease/media/cockburn.htm